We are adding to this post the list of Philippine law firms and Law Offices as sourced from the Securities and Exchange Commission. This is intended to inform the public as to the law firms and law offices which are offcially registered with the Philippine Securities and Exchange Commisssion (SEC). The list is unedited and may contain names of law firms and law offices which are no longer in operation. As with our list of lawyers and attorneys, we urge the public to go to the Supreme Court or the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for confirmation. You may view the list of Philippine law firms and law offices by clicking the link below.

There appears to be a 40% increase in the number of annulment cases filed between 2004-2010 from 4,520 to 8,282. This was the gist of a report submitted by the Office of the Solicitor General to the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP). The Philippine Bishops have likewise noted that more and more annulment cases are being granted because the Office of the Solicitor General does not have enough authority to contest and appeal the annulment cases that have been granted by the trial courts. (Manila Bulletin, 27 March 2011) (Although this may not be accurate legally). That the Solicitor General has been reporting to the Catholic hierarchy should be concern enough. What ever happened to the separation of Church and State??? Could this be the carrot following in the “condoms” of the Reproductive Health Bill?? The Catholic Church in the Philippines has always been critical of the annulment process and how in its collective psyche it has been abused by Filipinos. As we have noted in another post, the Philippines and Malta are the only two states that have not allowed absolute divorce. Even in Italy, where the Vatican is, there is absolute divorce. The hypocrisy is all too jarring. Multitudes of Filipinos could not escape their abusive and long lost marriages just because of this pressure exerted by the Catholic Church on the government. Catholic Church annulment has always proven to be a tedious process, which has left annulment the only recourse for most Filipinos.

The concept of an Ombudsman in the 1986 Philippine Consititution was a novel idea and grew out of the concerns against the cronyism, graft, and corruption of the Marcos era. The Ombudsman was intended to be the cintizenry’s champion against graft and corruption. The first Ombudsmen appointed were elderly lawyers with unblemished records in government or the private sector. In recent years, however, realizing perhaps the utility of the Office of the Ombudsman in forcing nasty political foes to tow the line, the President of the Philippines has seen fit to appoint politically savvy Ombudsmen. Now, the situation is so critical that the President of the Philippines has personally declared that the removal in office of the current Ombudsman, Merceditas Gutierrez, is an important objective of his Presidency and has called on his own cronies in Congress to see to it that this is accomplished as soon as possible. This has brought a constitutional office into the political limelight with the impeachment and trial of the Ombudsman. While the politicization was only subtly suggested in former administrations, the President himself now has unabashedly declared that this is a political issue. But is it good for a young democracy like the Philippines to politicize even heretofore considered constitutionally sacrosanct offices?? Precisely, is the impeachment process truly a political process or one that is more judicial than anything else?? What would now happen shoudl the Ombudsman be actually ousted or removed from office?? Would the President’s cronies now immune from scrutiny by the office of the Ombudsman when the new appointment is made?? Worse, the Ombudsman woudl be indebted to the political powers that be, and would expectedly single out the President’s enemies.

DIVORCE IN THE PHILIPPINES
A look back at Philippine history would show that the idea of divorce was not alien to Philippine culture. From a legal standpoint, absolute divorce was allowed in the Philippines during the Japanese occupation and during pre-colonization by Spain when both men and women were allowed to obtain divorce on the grounds of infidelity, childlessness, and failure to fulfill marital obligations. Spain put a damper on these liberties when women rights were diffused through the stringent dictates of the Catholic hierarchy.

The current Family Code of the Philippines does not allow divorce but allows annulment on the ground of psychological incapacity. Several measures have already been presented in the Philippine Congress, the latest of which being House Bill No. 1799 introduced by Congresswomen Luzviminda Ilagan and Emerenciana De Jesus in the latter part of 2010. No word as to the progress of this piece of legislation has been heard from the House of Representatives.

A new bill was filed last week in the House of Representative which purportedly seeks to simplify the process of getting an annulment of marriage in the Philippines. The proposed legislation would make the three grounds of violence, infidelity, and abandonment as “presumptively constitutive” of psychological incapacity. The proposal which would in effect amend the Family Code of the Philippines aims to facilitate the process of annulment for the poor who cannot afford the supposedly high cost of getting an annulment, as it would limit the discretion of the judges insofar as these three grounds are concerned. But will it, really?? Presently, for instance, the Supreme Court has removed the requirement that the psychological incapacity be “clinical” in nature, thus removing the erstwhile mandatory requirement of a psychological evaluation by an expert. However, most if not all Family Court judges still require the psychological evaluation in practice, and lawyers follow suit and submit expert testimony in any event. It is highly unlikely that the bill will curb judicial discretion in the same manner. If at all, it will focus the bench more on these three grounds and require more exacting evidence. The solution is consensual divorce with a summary judgment feature after about 6 months of filing. The holier than thou stance taken by the Philippines on this issue has put it infamously and ridiculously with the Vatican and Malta as the only states that do not allow divorce.

The Philippines is one of a few states in the international community that still considers sexual infidelity, in a general sense, a crime. Firstly, there is no crime under our Penal Laws which is denominated as infidelity. There is in its stead the crimes of concubinage, adultery, and loosely the crime of bigamy. There are other sexual crimes like acts of lasciviousness, seduction, etc. , but these have to be fodder for another blog entry. For now, we will discuss the major sexual sins, if you will, of adultery, concubinage, and bigamy.

So, what is sexual infidelity?

What is bigamy?

What is adultery?

What is concubinage?

(Please pardon the non literary arrangement because we are trying to be search engine optimized)

Bigamy:

Bigamy should be out of place here because what is punishable as such is having two marriages at the same time.It is not per se a sexually illegal act because it is not really a crime against the other spouse as being more a crime against the State for messing up the marriage registration system by marrying for the second or subsequent time. In this day of searchable databases and centralized registration (NSO), it behooves upon the authorities concerned as to how and why bigamy is such a prevalent practice or occurrence. So we will leave it at that for a later blog.

Sexual infidelity, adultery, and concibinage:

Sexual infidelity in a general sense, as we said, is not a crime. The term made its debut into Philippine law under the Civil Code provision on Legal Separation, unabashedly lifted from Catholic Canon Law. Curiously, sexual infidelity as a term was carried over as one of the manifestations (albeit may not be by itself according to some authors) of psychological incapacity as a ground for declaration of nullity of a marriage. The Civil Code of the Philippines prior to the Family Code did not even consider sexual infidelity as a ground for annulment, although ironically our Victorian forebears could conceivably put their respective spouses in jail if he or she committed the specific crimes of concubinage or adultery. But anti woman’s lib as the original drafters of the 1920’s Revised Penal Code were, the crime of adultery on the part of the woman was easier to prove than the crime of concubinage on the part of the man. For the woman, all one has to prove is that she had sexual intercourse with a man other than her husband (circumstancial evidence being possible in such a case especially so in an age when video cameras have not yet been invented). For the man, a wife has to prove that the act is scandalous to constitute concubinage. So if the infidelity was discreet (perhaps meaning not demonstrative or of an exhibitionist nature) then it would not be concubinage. This may, after all , be the precursors of the oft depicted scene in Tagalog movies of the legal wife “scandalously” confronting the “kulasisi” so as to come within the purview of the law.

But the Family Code has changed all that, for better or for worse, by introducing the concept of sexual infidelity as a ground for legal separation, and suggestively, as a possible manifestation likewise of psychological incapacity. So any form or fashion of sexual infidelity , be it scandalous or not, straight or gay, can now be considered as a ground for the declaration of nullity or annulment (in a loose legal sense) of a marriage. Conceivably, there may even be no sexual intercourse to constitute infidelity??Aha, that would be a novel idea. Some sort of a Lewinskiesque twist to the law.

A recent development is the concept of sexual infidelity under the Anti Violence Law (RA 9262) which mentions sexual infidelity and other sexually violent acts as punishable offenses. How this will impact on the concept of psychological incapacity and the criminal law would be interesting to see.

57 people dead, including women, lawyers, and journalists just because a group of people wanted to file a certificate of candidacy. Elections hasn’t started yet. Naturally, the international community is appalled. It is reminiscent of Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge, only this time it is not a matter of clashing ideologies but unmitigated greed—for power, money, and more power and money. In the Philippines, running for public office is an investment. A candidate has to recoup his capital. How does he do it then? Corruption. How does he profit? More corruption. And when he or his family can no longer run for public office (generally allowed 3 terms of 3 years each), he so casually resorts to murder and violence. These are the people we elect??DON’T VOTE . IT IS A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME AND EFFORT. EVERYBODY HAS AN INTEREST TO PROTECT AND POLITICAL DEBTS TO REPAY. So what should Mang Pandoy do? Well, if he has a relative abroad, simply migrate and get away from this political hellhole they call the Pearl of the Orient Seas. If he cannot go abroad or loves this country , stay , just go about your business, try to make a difference-even a small one-in other people’s lives, and more importantly, leave the political monkeys to themselves. Perhaps, the only sign of political maturity we can hope for is complete indifference. Unlike Gandhi’s passive resistance, there should be active indifference. Filipinos are so politicized, they forget what they are running for or voting for. SO GO OUT AND CHOKE.

Two Filipino success stories filled the news in the last couple of weeks.

There of course was the sensational humiliation handed down by boxer Manny Pacquiao on Miguel Cotto, in the process winning an unprecedented 7 titles in different weight categories. President Macapagal Arroyo immediately rewarded this with the highest civilian honor that the Philippine government can give. It did not hurt that Pacquiao won millions in prize money and more in cable sales, and a crack at another boxer for a whooping 50 Million US Dollars. Nor the fact that he is again running for Congress, reportedly in another City because he lost heavily in General Santos when he last run for Congress. Pacquiao was being heralded as the best boxer of all time, besting allegedly legends like Sugar Ray Leonard and the Greatest himself, Muhammad Ali. If Pacquiao were not alive and kicking, he might have replaced Rizal as the National Hero.

The other success story was that of Efren Penaflorida, a Filipino who brought education to hundreds of poor children in the slums using a makeshift wooden cart, borrowed education materials, and a hardy group of volunteers. He was not famous. He did not have his own TV show. He did not have money. He did not even have to do what he does. He could as easily have chosen a path that most young men take, probably work in an office and go home to a family. Yet, he chose to make a difference in the lives of others. For being CNN Hero of the Year he got 100,000 usd, small change when compared to Pacquiao’s Millions. But who did the Filipino public adore more, the internationally famous boxer with all his riches and glamor riding in his luxury cars or the humble, unknown educator in the slums pushing his makeshift wooden cart and like the pied piper playing the music of hope for hundreds of children who can afford only hope in their lives. Why must it take a foreigner to recognize this hero in our midst ? Why must the awards and titles go to someone who breaks another man’s face for a living instead of to somebody who has dedicated his life to make a difference?? Am I missing something here…huh??